I/II. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/how-india-is-killing-the-country-s-largest-economy-of-the-poor-57964
How India is killing the country’s largest economy of the poor Richard Mahapatra @richiemaha | Tuesday 30 May 2017 New restriction on cattle slaughter will severely cripple the livestock economy which is bigger than crop economy; poor farmers shifted to livestock in face of uncertain rain and dwindling income Livestock has assumed the most important role in providing employment and income generating opportunities. Credit: Samrat Mukherjee / CSE Quick Read Ban on procuring animals from market place for slaughter will adversely affect India’s poorest farmers It has been more than a decade that livestock economy is booming as a result of farmers’ conscious decision to switch over from crops The poor’s new economy risks a meltdown due to the constant confusion over ‘beef’ policy and the increasing intolerance to meat eating Forget about the loss of revenue from exporting buffalo meat after government’s ban on procuring animals from market place for slaughter, the real impact will be on India’s poorest farmers, and the economy of livestock which is worth more than Rs 3 lakh crore. The debate over the ban criminally revolves around federalism and religious sentiments. Rather, it is all set to kill an economy that India’s small and marginal farmers switched over to as adaptation to uncertain monsoon and dwindling income from regular crops In just a decade, there is a historic shift in the agriculture sector. Economic contribution of livestock is today more than that of food grain crops. Traditionally, of the three components of the sector—crops, livestock and fisheries—crops drove the growth, and food grains are a major part of it. As a result, policy and programmes focused on crops. This lack of knowledge of changing agrarian economy in the country has also resulted in misplaced debates after these recent regulations. While media focuses on the loss of export revenue, there is hardly any talk over the local economy of livestock which decides agricultural growth unilaterally now. It has been more than a decade that livestock economy is booming as a result of farmers’ conscious decision to switch over from crops. When in 2002-03, monetary contribution of livestock surpassed that of food grains, policy makers ignored it as a temporary coping mechanism of the poor in the face of sluggish agriculture due to repeated droughts. But livestock contribution has since remained higher by 5-13 per cent, according to economists at the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research. In fact, both livestock and fisheries components have been growing faster than the crops component for a decade. A report prepared for the 12th Five Year Plan (ended in 2017) accepted this shift by recognising livestock as the engine of agriculture growth. Livestock controls close to a quarter of the agriculture gross domestic product (GDP). In 2010-11, it generated outputs worth Rs 3, 40,500 crore (at current prices). This was 28 per cent of the agriculture GDP and about 5 per cent of the country’s GDP. After livestock, paddy is the next highest contributor to the agriculture GDP. In 2009-10, output from livestock was 2.5 times the value of paddy and more than thrice the value of wheat, as per the Central Statistical Office data. “Animals are natural capital, which can be easily reproduced to act as a living bank with offspring as interest, and an insurance against income shocks of crop failure and natural calamities,” says an economist. Driving livestock growth are changes in the utility of livestock for farmers and in food consumption pattern. Importance of livestock as the “draught power” has declined due to mechanisation of agricultural operations and declining farm sizes. Use of dung is also being replaced by chemical fertilisers. At the same time, consumption of livestock products like eggs, milk and meat is increasing due to rise in the income of the booming middle class, both in urban and rural areas. For many agriculture economists, due to this constant confusion over ‘beef’ policy and the increasing intolerance to meat eating, the poor’s new economy risks a meltdown. For example, the new regulation debars people from trading in market places. Most of the cattle are sold in local weekly markets. These markets are accessible and are a convenient option for farmers who otherwise have to spend a lot on transportation. Recognising the boom in livestock economy, way back in 2010-11, economists predicted that overall agriculture growth will be high. In 2009, despite severe drought, the agriculture sector registered growth due to the booming livestock economy. Livestock has assumed the most important role in providing employment and income generating opportunities. While crops still employ the maximum people, employment in livestock is fast catching up. Rise of the livestock sector has implications for poverty. Rural poverty is less in states where livestock contributes more to farm income. Punjab, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat and Rajasthan are a case in point. Mostly, marginal farmers and those who have quit farming are joining the livestock business. About 70 per cent of the livestock market in India is owned by 67 per cent of the small and marginal farmers and by the landless. One way, prosperity is now more dependent on per capita livestock ownership than on farms. This implies that the growth of the livestock sector would have more effect on poverty reduction than the growth of the crops sector. But this is not the full potential of the sector. Absence of policy focus has stifled the sector that caters to the poorest. India’s livestock productivity is 20-60 per cent lower than the global average. Deficiency of feed and fodder is the biggest factor responsible for 50 per cent of the total unrealised production potential, followed by inadequate breeding and reproduction, and increasing diseases among animals. As livestock is less prone to global warming and climate change, it can be considered more reliable than rain-fed agriculture. But livestock receives only 12 per cent of the total public expenditure on the agriculture and allied sector and four-five per cent of the total institutional credit flow into the sector. Hardly six per cent of the livestock are insured. But now, with all these regulations and confusion over government’s own policy towards cattle, the new economy of the poor is under grave threat. As unemployment grips India, the livestock sector could have been a natural choice to tide over the crisis. But if one farmer is not sure of selling a cattle, and not sure about his or her security while dealing with cattle, the economy will just collapse. Like in the free market, sentiment also is critical for the economy of the poor. II. http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/a-constitutional-misadventure-cow-slaughter-gau-rakshak-beef-ban-4679912/ A constitutional misadventure The proposed ban on the sale and purchase of cattle for slaughter at agricultural markets violates fundamental rights of food and livelihood, and the spirit of federalism. Written by Anup Surendranath | Published:May 30, 2017 12:10 am It is evident that the real interest is not in preventing cruelty to animals but rather, in protecting cattle for other reasons. (Illustration by Subrata Dhar) In what can only be termed an extremely ill-advised constitutional manoeuvre, the government of India has sought to effectively prohibit cattle slaughter across the country through rules made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Though the rules do not explicitly ban slaughter, they ban the sale and purchase of cattle for slaughter at agricultural markets and therefore, in effect, are attempting to put an end to all kinds of cattle slaughter across the country. It is a constitutional misadventure on multiple grounds involving fundamental rights, separation of powers and federalism. To understand the extent of this misadventure, clarity on some basic constitutional concepts will be useful. It was the Indian Parliament that enacted The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the Act) and that legislation empowers the Government of India (as the executive) to make rules to implement the Act. The executive’s power to make rules under a legislation cannot be exercised in a manner that is contrary to parent legislation — and the latest set of rules does exactly that. The Act through section 11 criminalises cruel treatment of animals by listing a wide range of activities and then, in sub-clause (3)(e) of that very provision, declares that killing an animal for food will not be an offence unless it is “accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering”. It is explicit and clear as day that the Act does not contemplate a prohibition on the slaughter of animals for food. The government cannot then, through its executive power to make rules, achieve a goal that is not permitted by the substantive provisions of the legislation. Further, in sub-clause (3)(c) of the Act, it is clearly stated that killing of animals permitted under other existing laws cannot be made an offence. There exist multiple state legislations that permit the slaughter of cattle and the Government of India (GoI) cannot then use this Act to render such slaughter illegal. In issuing this latest set of rules, the GoI has exercised power it does not have under The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Another glaring anomaly in the new rules is that the government seems interested in preventing cruelty only to cattle (defined as bovine animals including the cow, bull, bullock, buffaloes, steers, heifers, calves and camels). If the government’s real interest was indeed the prevention of cruelty to animals due to slaughter, there cannot be any constitutionally acceptable reason for leaving out chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, fish, rabbits, etc. It is evident that the real interest is not in preventing cruelty to animals but rather, in protecting cattle for other reasons. It is important to understand the reasons for the GoI choosing to protect cattle through The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Why did the government not introduce a bill in Parliament to prohibit cow slaughter across the country? Cow slaughter is regulated/prohibited across the country in different ways by various state legislations. Different state legislations have variations on the kind of cattle that can be slaughtered and when they can be slaughtered. That is the reason for getting only buffalo meat in Delhi, the meat of bulls and bullocks in Kerala and a complete prohibition on slaughter of cows, bulls, bullocks and buffaloes in Madhya Pradesh. Such prohibitions/regulations are achieved through separate state legislations because the power to make such laws is given exclusively to the states under the constitution. And there is very good constitutional logic for that. There is no religious protection for the cow or any other cattle under the constitution and the issue of cow slaughter in the Directive Principles of State Policy is tied to agriculture and the interests of animal husbandry. That approach flows into the constitutional logic of leaving the power of determining cow slaughter regulations exclusively to the states because issues relating to livestock are invariably tied to local conditions of agriculture, availability of fodder, customs, dietary preferences, etc. An all-India anti-cow slaughter legislation by Parliament is unviable because the constitution does not give Parliament the power to make such a law. And therefore, this indirect attempt through The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The GoI is attempting to indirectly achieve a goal that it cannot directly achieve. The government is resorting to prohibit cow slaughter through the lens of animal cruelty because the power to make laws on animal cruelty is shared between the states and Union under the Concurrent List of the Constitution. But such a tactical move comes with serious constitutional consequences. As discussed earlier, the current version of the legislation on animal cruelty does not give the government the power to prohibit slaughter per se, cattle or otherwise. Can Parliament then amend The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to prohibit slaughter per se, irrespective of whether it is accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering? It surely can (whether it will survive a constitutional challenge in court is a separate question) and nothing prevents the government from pushing through such a legislative amendment. However, that would still leave the question unanswered — whether the government can selectively prohibit the slaughter of cattle while permitting the slaughter of other animals? Therein lies the ill-advised nature of this move. The government cannot selectively protect cattle through The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Relying on the argument against cruelty to animals is an all-or-nothing option. And if the slaughter of all animals is prohibited under the Act, we would be confronted with a forced vegetarianism debate. The latest move of the government is symptomatic of the debate on cow slaughter. While political discussion on the issue is driven by religious considerations, the judicial journey pretends very hard to be about considerations other than religion. The long line of Supreme Court decisions goes to absurd lengths to justify anti-cow slaughter legislations on grounds of agriculture. It was only last year that a court was finally called upon to rule on the validity of a prohibition on the possession/consumption of beef per se even if the meat was sourced from a state that permitted cow slaughter. The Bombay High Court in a constitutionally mature decision upheld the constitutional liberty to determine individual dietary preferences and struck down the prohibition contained in the Maharashtra legislation. The Supreme Court is yet to look at anti-cow slaughter legislations from this angle and neither has it ever before looked at the impact of anti-cow slaughter legislations on the dietary habits of social groups and on those working in the leather industry. Located in a political context that is aggressive and violent on the cow protection agenda, when the case does come before it, it is imperative that the Supreme Court sends a clear message on fundamental liberties and limitations on the power of the government. Meanwhile, we all must take a step back and introspect about India’s political and constitutional journey over nearly seven decades that permits governments to tell us what we can eat. The writer teaches constitutional law at National Law University, Delhi. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
